That article felt eerily like AI writing. Lots of words and few ideas, and the ideas they had were poorly explained...
Bizarre.
The new literalism plaguing today’s movies
321–330 of 454 posts
Re: The new literalism plaguing today’s movies
#322I find this article rather underwhelming because it spends so much time calling out bad examples and so little time highlighting examples of subtlety (in any era). Without positive examples, I don’t think they make the case that this is a new phenomenon or even a phenomenon at all: all the author has done is identify a lens to criticize through. It may be the case that this is a recent phenomenon (though some other c…
so true
Re: The new literalism plaguing today’s movies
#323Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think they simply did what AAA video games did. They found what sold best at one moment in time and then obsessively tried to work to copy that. But the problem is that people don't want to play 40 different Call of Duties, or watch 30 different Batmen. It's just that Batman or Call of Duty were the 'meet in the middle' of a variety of different tastes. But when those other tastes aren't accounted for, it becomes n…
This is a good point. Modern movies try to appeal to everyone. Can't be too edgy or too opinionated, don't want to sick rabid hordes of haters on themselves. And there's a huge segment of the Western population teetering on the edge of death or living in misery in various ways who are a literal matchbox waiting for a spark, no megaconglomerate film company wants to be responsible for setting them off, to the point wh…
I feel the same way about Beetlejuice Beetlejuice and Napoleon Dynamite, but just wanted to add that Michael Keaton’s portrayal was still brilliant and I’m happy he could still pull it off.
The plot and all the non-Beetlejuice scenes were a waste of time.
Re: The new literalism plaguing today’s movies
#324This article is not professionally written. Somebody get this writer an editor
Re: The new literalism plaguing today’s movies
#325Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why do you bring up 4:3 as a bad property? Honestly I find watching 4:3 easier on the eyes and mind since you know where to look.
You might be an outlier. Our FOV is wide, so it's a better match. Furthermore, the 4:3 version of a movie is almost always a crop from the intended ratio, so information and intent is lost.
Ye I think my FOV is fine I did tests for my driving license. I feel it has more to do with me being distracted by things in the peripherals.
And ye cropped is bad. Think STNG.
Re: The new literalism plaguing today’s movies
#326I agree, its for the same reason that trailers now have little trailers in the beginning. I mean really, a trailer for a trailer? Apparently its required to keep retention up because even adults are now children that need to be spoon fed.
That sounds like a different issue. With low quality "information" thrust at people from all sides, you have to immediately prove that you're not just AI slop video #63547, because I'm seeing your video on a platform that mostly delivers AI slop that I will scroll past within 3 seconds.
Why am I on a platform that mostly delivers slop? That's a trillion dollar question. The advertising industry won.
Also because if I was on a non-slop platform, it wouldn't be showing me your ad because ads are slop.
Re: The new literalism plaguing today’s movies
#327I'm surprised they call out the Conclave as an example of a good movie. It's not a bad movie, but the final twist (I'm not going to spoil it) is way over the top and almost absurdly Hollywood.
[deleted]
Re: The new literalism plaguing today’s movies
#328Earlier quoted context omitted.
Please, anime today is purely for children and teenagers. The golden age of serious anime is long over.
What in your mind was the golden age of serious anime? There's tons of trash today (cough 99% of isekai cough), but there was plenty of trash in almost any era of anime. How much god awful "harem anime" came out in the 90s/00s?
The ratio of diamond to coal is the point. Of course you may always find an exception, but like you say there's tons of trash today.
People consider the 80s to early 90s the golden age, not 90s/00s it isn't something I just made up. On average there is an undeniable drop in animation quality and story quality compared to past eras.
Re: The new literalism plaguing today’s movies
#329Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am confused by the use of the term, telegraphed or signpost. I am not even sure I understand what this literalism is about. Coming from a martial art background, telegraph means reading the subtle signs that comes before an action in order to anticipate, intercept, and counter it within the same tempo. It can also mean exaggeration of the signs, letting slip one’s intentions as an error in execution, or deceiving s…
"Telegraph" is a bit of an unfortunate word because when used metaphorically it has come to have two almost diametrically opposed meanings. I think that's what's tripping you up.
Ok, given that then I think the next thing that is tripping me up is that the author of the New Yorker article is writing in a way that is itself being very literalist.
I read through the whole article looking for something that is insightful, but it feels as if the author is beating a dead horse the way the examples does the same. Maybe experiencing that is the point, but I can't help but thinking it was all a waste of time.
Re: The new literalism plaguing today’s movies
#330Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nah, I don't buy this. In 2002 your "low quality DVD" was peak quality for us. Same way the blocky renders of PS1 was peak video-gaming for us. It only looks low quality when compared with today. For us at the time, it was magnificent.
> For us at the time, it was magnificent. At the time, did you think the quality of that DVD was about the same as the experience you got in the theater? The parent post is arguing that the gap in experience between home theaters and theater theaters has shrunk immensely. Right now I have a 85" wide OLED in my living room - That's not a thing that existed in 2002
No, but it was good enough for most movies. The person you replied to is correct: It was glorious at the time. We were all amazed by graphics, even on those old tvs. The "movie theater experience" wasn't worth the hassle for anything but movies with good action and graphics - things like comedies didn't get uniquely better at the theater.
It didn't need to be about the same or better, it just needed to be good enough to appreciate that you weren't dealing with the downsides. The theaters weren't that good back in the late 90's (in fact, most of the ones I visited in my teens have renovated to be more current sometime around 2010 or something). All people needed was more realistic alternatives. More and more folks were getting cable, DVD players were more affordable, and places like walmart sold DVDs for a cheaper price than you'd pay for a full price movie. Netflix started in the late 90s too.
Yes, I know folks could rent videos before this. I remember walking down to rent NES games when I was young - right next to the movies at the grocery store. This was a far cry from the stores of the late 90s, though. They got better (and worse).